Talk:Smilodon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why I had to revert some edits

@LittleJerry: Firstly, even the article American lion notes that the issue of it a subspecies of Panthera leo is WP:disputable, it is a bit like the issue of the anatomically modern human and Neanderthal possibly being different species. Secondly, this was a bad edit, because I made it clear that even extant cats can exceed 400 kilograms (880 lb), and they are captive lions and tigers, and hybrids between them, such as the first-generation liger, so there is no point in saying that Smilodon populator, which was estimated to weigh 220 to 400 kg (490 to 880 lb), was perhaps the largest felid. Leo1pard (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not continue this further. The weights of captive and overfed lions and tigers are irrelevant. As for the liger, I added in "felid species". LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Do not contradict the WP:Consensus. You have ignored the issue of WP:Neutrality, by insisting on the American lion being Panthera leo atrox, and you have shown WP:bias by ignoring the fact that extant felid hybrids like the liger can grow to sizes that would make them rival even Smilodon populator, even if the issue of captive, overfed lions and tigers is irrelevant. Leo1pard (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you went against the consensus. You tried this hair splitting before and your edit was reverted by FunkMonk. LittleJerry (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk said "don't go into taxonomic nitty gritty about a completely different species here," so I avoided calling the American lion either Panthera leo atrox or Panthera atrox, but you LittleJerry put back the information about it (arguably) being P. l. atrox, so you are the one who went against the consensus about the taxonomy of the American lion, not me. Leo1pard (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It is consistent through the article to give the scientific name next to the common name of a prehistoric species like for dire wolf. The American lion being a subspecies by a DNA study. That's all that matters for this article. LittleJerry (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A DNA study maybe, but not all studies. De Santis et al. (2012) not only called the American lion as Panthera atrox, but also the Upper Pleistocene Eurasian cave lion as Panthera spelaea, rather than Panthera leo spelaea, and the Eurasian cave lion is important for the issue of whether or not the American lion was a subspecies of Panthera leo, for at least 2 reasons:

1) We have soft tissue for the former, particularly frozen cubs, and they suspect that it was a different species to the modern lion, albeit closely related, in the same way that people suspect the Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) to have been a different species to Homo sapiens, to which the anatomically modern human belongs. Leo1pard (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

2) The modern lion is of a different lineage to both American and Eurasian cave lions, so if the Eurasian cave lion is a different species to the modern lion, then so is the American lion. Leo1pard (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So to call the American lion Panthera leo atrox in this article, when discussing issues like that of it coexisting with North American saber-toothed cats such as Smilodon fatalis, is like calling the Neanderthal Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, when discussing issues like that of these archaic humans coexisting with prehistoric predators like the Eurasian cave lion, if this topic had to come up. Leo1pard (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Then change it to P. atrox; we don't need to list multiple scientific names, and we don't need to remove them completely. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to avoid even using Panthera atrox for the American lion, due to what I mentioned above, until a new study proves that it should be classified as such, similar to what we discussed here, and to leave scientific names that are not WP:disputable in this page, such as Smilodon fatalis, as they are. Leo1pard (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, this article is not about atrox, so it isn't important to take these nitty gritty issues into consideration. It means absolutely zilch to this article whether the American lion is a species or subspecies, so just pick the most supported one and get on with it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a most supported one. Leo1pard (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: The consensus has not been reached? I thought that it is done, and that it is agreed that using either Panthera leo atrox or Panthera atrox for the American lion is pointless for this article. Why are we still stuck with this issue? Leo1pard (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone still have something to say, about either the WP:disputable taxonomic status of the American lion, or that S. populator from South America was perhaps the largest known felid species? Leo1pard (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus for using one scientific name, whatever it is. There is no consensus for meddling with size info which is not supported by the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

1) Which WP:disputable scientific name?

2) In that case, there is no point in saying that Smilodon populator was perhaps the largest felid species. Leo1pard (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You are going in circles. It doesn't matter what name we use for an animal that is not the subject of the article. The article currently uses one variant, and that's all we need here. And unnaturally occurring sizes of captive animals are irrelevant here too. We go by what then sources about the subject of this article says. FunkMonk (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

For the second part, still, there is no point in saying that Smilodon populator was perhaps the largest felid species, because there was the formidable American lion, but there is a point in saying that it was the largest of this genus. Leo1pard (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You need to understand that what you personally think is completely irrelevant, all that matters is what the sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you are contradicting yourself, I have at least one reference to show that there is no point in saying that S. populator was perhaps the largest species. If you want to go by what is supported by references, then this sentence that S. populator was perhaps the largest felid species needs to be corrected. Leo1pard (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided this reference. The one you used earlier doesn't even mention other larger felids. And if one reference contradicts the majority of other references, it is probably the single reference that is wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Both of these references talk about felids that were outside the genus Smilodon, but then, is it agreed that this sentence that Smilodon populator was perhaps the largest felid species is rubbish, and that it should be replaced with a sentence about it being either one of the largest felid species, or the largest species in the genus Smilodon? Leo1pard (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works, and you seem to be pushing your own POV. Where in these sources you list is it stated S. populator was not one of the largest felids? Quote the exact sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not pushing my own POV, because I said that either "Smilodon populator was one of the largest felids," or "Smilodon populator was the largest species of the genus Smilodon" is acceptable, and that "S. populator from South America was perhaps the largest known felid species, at 220 to 400 kg (490 to 880 lb) in weight and 120 cm (47 in) in height" is unacceptable, is that clear now? Leo1pard (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you personally find "unacceptable". If you want something changed, quote the passages in reliable sources that support your claims. It can't be that hard. In any case, the intro and the description section should be synchronised in whether they refer to it as "perhaps the largest" or "one of the largest". FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And I have references for Smilodon populator for being one of the largest felids, and against it being the largest felid. Leo1pard (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

For starters, quote one of the sources that are "against". What does it say exactly? And no personal interpretations, please. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Such as this one? Nyhus and Tilson (2010): "... taking into account the extinct massive American lion, Panthera (leo) atrox, the lion may even be the biggest felid ever known." And I think that to put leo in brackets for the American lion's scientific name makes sense, considering what I said above. Leo1pard (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say (or even imply) that "S. populator was not one of the largest known felids"? FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say I am not arguing against Smilodon populator being one of the biggest felids, but against Smilodon populator being the biggest felid? Leo1pard (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And do not tell me that I have been arguing against Smilodon populator being one of the biggest felids, because since the 28th of November, I have been trying to say in the article that Smilodon populator was one of the biggest known felids. Leo1pard (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So I hope that we can now conclude this by saying that we should use Panthera (leo) atrox (rather than either of the WP:disputable scientific names Panthera atrox or Panthera leo atrox) for the American lion, and that the article should say that Smilodon populator was either one of the biggest felids, or the largest species of the genus Smilodon. Leo1pard (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The name will not be changed for reasons already given, but yes, we should be consistent in what we say in the intro and the description. Which of the statements are most accurate, LittleJerry? FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't look through the 2012 article, but the American lion article cites it for the male size of 235–523 kg (518–1,153 pounds). LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Or more importantly, De Santis et al. (2012), who used Panthera atrox for the American lion, said that about its weight, so this article should not say that Smilodon populator was the biggest felid, but that it was either one of the biggest felids, or the largest species of the genus Smilodon. Leo1pard (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

So FunkMonk and LittleJerry, did you agree to the phrase "Smilodon populator was one of the biggest felids" and the name Panthera leo atrox for the American lion, or "Smilodon populator was one of the biggest felids" and the name Panthera (leo) atrox for the American lion, or something else? Leo1pard (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The wording given in the intro should be used in the description. And yet again, we don't change the name of atrox, it is not necessary here, until there is a scientific consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If the American lion did get bigger than S. popular than yes we should demote the latter to "one of the largest". We should not do that for overweight captive lions and tigers or unnatural hybrids. LittleJerry (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Or any prehistoric cat that was large. Not only would a Smilodon populator weighing 470 kg (1,040 lb) be rivaled by an American lion weighing 523 kg (1,153 lb), but also a Ngandong tiger weighing 470 kg (1,040 lb). Leo1pard (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Rivaled by" means that none are necessarily the largest. And we don't need to list potential "rivals" in the article. This is not a size-contest, . FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Or not all rivals in size, just any rival that coexisted with Smilodon, for the issue of coexistence, and say that Smilodon populator was one of the largest felids. Leo1pard (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It is controversial whether the American lion even lived in South America, so we cannot state here that they coexisted with populator. Also, we already have the following text: "Other large carnivores included dire wolves, short-faced bear (Arctodus simus) and the American lion.[13][58][75] Due to competition from larger carnivores in North America, S. fatalis was perhaps not able to attain the same size as S. populator. The similar sizes of S. fatalis and the American lion suggests niche overlap and direct competition between these species, and they appear to have fed on similarly sized prey." FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

But why are you mentioning this? What is important for this article, since it is about the genus Smilodon, is that the American lion coexisted with it, and that Smilodon populator was one of the biggest felids, or the largest species of this genus. Leo1pard (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You just said "Or not all rivals in size, just any rival that coexisted with Smilodon, for the issue of coexistence". S. populator probably didn't co-exist with the American lion, and it is already mentioned that S. fatalis co-existed with it. So there is no reason to mention this once more in the article, as you seemed to propose. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that I mean any rival that coexisted with Smilodon populator, rather than Smilodon as a whole? To put it simply, what I mean is this: the American lion coexisted with Smilodon, and that Smilodon populator was one of the largest felids, or the largest species of the genus Smilodon. Leo1pard (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

All of which is already stated in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Though this irrelevant statement that Smilodon populator was perhaps the largest felid needs to be removed. Leo1pard (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant at all, but it should be consistent with the description section. Not sure what your definition of "irrelevant" is. It does not mean inaccurate or imprecise. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be consistent: one of the largest felids, or the largest species of the genus Smilodon. Leo1pard (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

References

"Pure scavengers"

The sentence "It has been suggested that Smilodon was a scavenger that mainly used its canines for display to assert dominance over carcasses, but this theory is not supported today as no modern terrestrial mammals are pure scavengers." is odd. Suggesting that Smilodon was a scavenger is not the same as suggesting it was a pure scavenger; it's illogical that this would even be assumed as the case given the sentence's own admission that no terrestrial mammals are pure scavengers. Many terrestrial mammals scavenge for a majority of their diet (Striped hyena, brown hyena, black-backed jackal, etc.) and although there is little evidence for Smilodon being a genus of mainly-scavengers, the excuse listed provides very little reason to discount the entire suggestion. Luke Beall (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The source actually says it was suggested to be an exclusive scavenger, so this could be added here too, for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

For the image caption "Smilodon skeleton in standing position", Smilodon should be italicized per the rest of the article. 2001:569:782B:7A00:44ED:FE73:AE08:3649 (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Done WolfmanSF (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Organization

Like a lot of prehistoric animal articles, the sections are written in incredibly fat paragraphs which makes it difficult and quite daunting to read. No one wants to sort through an 1,100 word essay which only discusses physical description. It should be subdivided into smaller and easier to manage subsections as here. There is plenty of text in each subsection, and, though still comprehensive, it doesn't look enormous, and it's easier to find specific text dealing with certain subjects, rather than just having everything about one specific topic stuck together in one enormous essay-of-a-paragraph.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The section is very short compared to most other animal descriptions, and they are usually not split down to that small pieces unless they are very long. We would have to make subsections for single, short paragraphs, which is advised against by the MOS "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. We're talking about a section consisting of four paragraphs here, nothing daunting about that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, 4 incredibly long paragraphs. We should be actively trying to avoid large paragraphs. These massive blocks of text will put off the average reader from even considering skimming it. The changes above do not create single-sentence sections so we don’t need to discuss that. Other animal descriptions (especially dinosaur articles) are far far too long for anyone’s liking. The entire point of subsections is to break information up into manageable portions. We shouldn’t fear them.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the current organization is fine, except the size information should not interrupt the discussion of anatomy (and maybe warrants its own subsection). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the main editors should be consulted before doing such edits, so I'll ping LittleJerry, my FAC co-nominator. I still don't see compelling reasons/room for more sub-sections under description, but whether the text within the section could be organised in a different way is a different story. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s really a question of readability. If you ask the average person, they will most definitely say that section is too much to read. A lot of people I know say even the leads of a lot of articles are far too much to read (so most readers stop at the first couple of sentences). So, if you break it up into smaller (though still sizable) sections, it won’t look like so much and people will be less inclined to skip over it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I would not object to splitting up some of the paragraphs, but I still do not see why extra sections are necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Dividing by paragraphs makes it look bigger, more daunting, and cluttered than splitting it up by subsection. It's not as readable (fails WP:ACCESS "making web pages easier to navigate and read") because it looks like you have to read a very long drawn out essay, and will most definitely put off any general reader from looking at it. This is a big problem on a lot of sides of the wiki, the sections are far too long for anyone's liking. A subsection is not meant to be essay-sized, it's just meant to better organize information so the average reader can more easily access it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Did Smilodon have a poisonous bite?

In this Smilodon article it talks about how it is a mystery how Smilodon used its fangs. I know that cats have bacteria in their saliva that is deadly to birds if a bird is scratched by a cat. Could there have been something similar with Smilodon? From what I understand, deep wounds in general are very dangerous for getting infections.

Quotes from the Smilodon article:

"The heel bone of Smilodon was fairly long, which suggests it was a good jumper."

"Debate continues as to how Smilodon killed its prey. Traditionally, the most popular theory is that the cat delivered a deep stabbing bite or open-jawed stabbing thrust to the throat, killing the prey very quickly.[54][55] Another hypothesis suggests that Smilodon targeted the belly of its prey. This is disputed, as the curvature of their prey's belly would likely have prevented the cat from getting a good bite or stab.[56] In regard to how Smilodon delivered its bite, the "canine shear-bite" hypothesis has been favored, where flexion of the neck and rotation of the skull assisted in biting the prey, but this may be mechanically impossible. However, evidence from comparisons with Homotherium suggest that Smilodon was fully capable of and utilized the canine shear-bite as its primary means of killing prey, based on the fact that it had a thick skull and relatively little trabecular bone, while Homotherium had both more trabecular bone and a more lion-like clamping bite as its primary means of attacking prey. The discovery, made by Figueirido and Lautenschlager et al., published in 2020 suggests extremely different ecological adaptations in both machairodonts.[57] The mandibular flanges may have helped resist bending forces when the mandible was pulled against the hide of a prey.[58]"

Happy1892

You probably mean venomous, as poisonous refers to something you eat, but anyway, it would hardly be necessary with teeth of thate size, and it's not something that can be proved from fossils anyway, unless venom canals are present. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

-I wasn't sure if venomous would be the right word for it. The house cat has bacteria in their saliva that is deadly to birds if a bird is scratched by a cat. I read this in a parrot care book, so you have to keep cats away from your parrot. And as you said, venom would hardly be necessary with teeth of that size that would cause such a deep wound, unless venom kills quicker. People will get paralyzed if they step on rusty nails from tetanus. Tetanus is dormant as a spore in the soil or rusty nail, until it gets into an anaerobic environment, like deep inside a person's foot. And so when the tetanus spores hatch, they produce a potent toxin that causes paralysis in the human. Happy1892

Meaning of fatalis

The Latin word "fatalis" means "the deadly" in English. In Latin the word "fate or destiny" is "fatum". However, the latin word "fatales" means "fatal". Notice the difference of one letter between fatalis and fatales and their somewhat similar spelling with fatum. It would appear that the Florida Museum of Natural History should have checked with their latin dept. before making presumptions! LOL Briain52 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please remember that talkpages are WP:NOTAFORUM, and are, instead, for discussing how to improve the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have a source that states all this in the context of Smilodon, please present it here. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I came to say more or less the same thing. The FMNH heavily implies that Leidy was wrong to use fatalis in the same sense as the modern meaning of the English word "fatal", but the truth is fatalis appears to have been used in the sense of "dangerous", "destructive" or "deadly" at least since the 1st century. I'm not sure a source that states this specifically in the context of Smilodon is needed because, at the end of the day, what we are discussing here is simply whether a Latin word had a certain meaning, so a reliable dictionary should suffice.--Leptictidium (mt) 08:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Since there obviously has been cast some doubt on the issue in at least one source, we would need a source that specifically relates to the issue. Otherwise it would be original research to pick and choose the sources that seem convenient. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

At least one source or only one source? A Google search for <"Smilodon fatalis" "fate" "destiny"> yields no results beyond the FMNH site, this Wikipedia article, and other sites that borrow content from the first two, often verbatim. Other sources simply translate fatalis as "fatal" or "deadly" without any caveats whatsoever.--Leptictidium (mt) 12:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If we can find reliable sources that make that simple translation in the context of Smilodon I agree we could change it, but not if we make our own dictionary synth. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A couple here:

• Sometimes the name might be descriptive (e.g., "Smilodon fatalis", the "fatal saber-tooth") or it might honor a place or geological unit of discovery (e.g., "Kayentachelys", a fossil turtle found in the Kayenta Formation of Arizona) or some individual (e.g., "Eldredgeops", after famed trilobite paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Niles Eldredge)., from the University of Maryland Department of Geology;
• Smilodon fatalis means "deadly knife tooth," but the purpose of these large fangs remains a mystery. Sabertooth cats showed up in the fossil record about two million years ago and ranged widely over North and South America., from National Geographic; and
• While the extinct predator, whose Latin name Smilodon fatalis means “deadly knife-tooth”, normally ate bison, mammoths and mastodons, it also picked off members of its own species when times were harsh, an analysis of hundreds of fossils recovered from the famous Rancho La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles shown., from The Times.

I think the National Geographic source would be appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong source?

Hi. I've had a look at reference 18 and have been unable to find anything that supports the claim it supposedly sources, namely that "The younger Smilodon species are probably derived from S. gracilis". Furthermore, reference 17 seems to possibly contradict that, as it says "In this context, S. populator could have originated in South America from S. gracilis or from a common ancestor but S. fatalis originated in North America where there are older records [...]". Am I missing something here, or was reference 18 supposed to point to a different source?--Leptictidium (mt) 12:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to say so many years after, not sure who wrote it. If we can find some newer sources that give the current consensus, we could replace it. But I'll ping LittleJerry, who wrote the original version of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember this at all. LittleJerry (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"R.Smilodon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect R.Smilodon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 13#R.Smilodon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Claim that Smilodon targeted glyptodonts unverified by citation author

Hi everyone,

This is my first post on a Talk page, so I'm looking forward to learning. I looked into this sentence under 3.1 Diet:

In rare cases, Smilodon may have also targeted glyptodonts, based on a Glyptotherium skull that bears elliptical puncture marks[42] consistent with the size and diameter of its canine teeth.[43]

And found that yes, citation [42] does note an individual Glyptotherium with two holes in its cranium and the author speculates that these were caused by a large cat. However, the claim that these holes are "consistent with the size and diameter of its Smilodon's canine teeth" is not what the author of citation [43] stated. The author of citation [43] did not say anything about measuring the holes, but did reference [42] to make the unsubstantiated claim that the holes were caused by Smilodon. So what is the protocol for if and how to edit a Wikipedia page if the original source's claim is invalid?

Spanobo (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This article attracts a lot of stray additions, since it's so popular, and often they are not checked in-depth. If no sources mention Smilodon in relation to those bitemarks, the info should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tamradactyl, Zachlepage.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Camelops

I've perused the source given for "Isotopes preserved in the bones of S. fatalis in the La Brea Tar Pits reveal that ruminants like bison (Bison antiquus, which was much larger than the modern American bison) and camels (Camelops) were most commonly taken by the cats there", and I haven't found any passage that unequivocally sources the part about Camelops. If none can be found, I suggest removing the reference to Camelops from this sentence.--Leptictidium (mt) 11:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, and to fix any other inconsistency you encounter. It's hard to keep track on what is added to the article since it's so popular. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Smilodon gracilis National Park service.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Species

There are actually five species. 2601:18D:4701:F00:DCA1:82E6:781D:8F97 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Which are? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Paleodb seems to recognize two more, S. rigii and S. crucians. But a search of Gscholar tells me that S. rigii hasn't been considered valid since at least 2007, and S. crucians hasn't been mentioned in literature for even longer, it looks like. However, some authors have recently proposed a re-examination of the S. fatalis-S. californicus synonymy. But that is still only four. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Splitting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that information pertaining to Smilodon fatalis and Smilodon populator be split off into their own articles. Both species are very notable and many information on each of those species is known and in this very large article. Given the size of the article and the notability of these species, I believe this split is justified. The original Smilodon article should be used as a basic info the genus as a whole and to highlight the less studied/poorly known species (ie gracilis). Porqaz (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose - all relevant information about the three species is already present here, and it passed WP:GAN and WP:FAC as such. Guidelines agreed on at WP:Palaeo state that prehistoric species should be covered at the genus article unless the article grows too long, which is not the case here. Less is known about prehistoric species than extant ones, so it makes little sense to split short articles left and right simply for the sake of it, as proposed here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose, per FunkMonk. There is no need to split them off, not when they are covered more than adequately in this article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose, per above. LittleJerry (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• support Another overzealous application of a guideline noted at one of the relevant projects. That reviews of the page exist has no bearing on this discussion, but it is a lumping model that is strongly preferred by the opposer in their other FA submissions. ~ cygnis insignis 14:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It very much does have bearing on this discussion, as it is that project that maintains these articles. We should not split just for the sake of it and create pointless WP:content forks of duplicate text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Support- the way the article is right now is fine, but honestly, with two species being so well-known but distinct (S. fatalis and S. populator), I think they would benefit from having their own articles. In fact, a was a little surprised that they haven't already been split. In particular, S. populator; its paleobiology is quite divergent from S. fatalis, not the least because it was likely solitary, and possibly had a more dominant role in the trophic pyramid. I recall looking specifically for information and citations regarding S. populator in this article, only to find much information on S. fatalis. There is so much literature which could be used to fill out an article on each species, not the least examining the paleo-ecology of each species, and what habitats and ecological roles they preferred. Off the top of my head, I can think of the contrasts between S. populator in the more open Patagonia, versus the savanna woodlands of the Brazilian intertropical region, and studies I have read regarding their prey preferences. I thought about adding this to the current article, however it looked large enough to me already, and seems to generally blend all three species. Although I am generally in support of splitting, I would also be in favour of creating little sub-sections under relevant sections with S. fatalis and S. populator as sub-headings, outlining the species-level differences of each animal's biology- this could very well better cover the genus' range in both North and South America, which would likely breathe better in their own articles anyway. In regards to the shared info if the species were to be split, I would suggest keeping the most detailed version in this article, then transferring short summaries to either of the new articles, should that happen. Interested to hear your opinions. SuperTah (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This article has more than enough capacity to cover any specific info about each species, and it currently specifies what info pertains to which species. If you can think of more info to add, feel free to do so. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Support- While the guidelines mentioned are useful to avoid stub articles, I see no good reason not to give Smilodon fatalis and S. populator their own articles. Both species are very well known, probably even better than many modern species. The way the article is organised now, it makes it unnecessarily difficult for the layman to find information about certain species. As already mentioned, S. fatalis and S. populator are also likely to have differed considerably from each other in ecological terms. So while separate articles for the different Homotherium species would be rather pointless, as they were all morphologically and probably ecologically very similar, this does not apply to Smilodon. Here, separate articles would promote the understanding of their differences. For many of the popular, recently extinct megafauna such as mammoths, bison, steppe lions and Stephanorhinus species, there are species-specific articles which, in my experience, are useful. AndersenAnders (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Compromise: For those who want to split, write up Draft:Smilodon fatalis and Draft:Smilodon populator in their entirety, then bring the drafts here for review. If both articles are collectively deemed good enough to stand on their own, without being too redundant to the (rewritten, possibly need a third draft) genus article, then the split can go through. (Though I admit to preferring that if a split does go through, all three species getting articles instead of just one). Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

But why? What is it this article needs that more articles will provide other than just more articles to keep track of? FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Because people tend to be very eager to propose or support a split, but not so much to turn the split articles into good ones. And because, in fairness, both S. fatalis and S. populator do have a considerable amount of available information, probably enough to make two good articles (or Good Articles). This is, essentially, the barrier to actually splitting: make the new articles good ones, and don't argue just to make two stubs. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

They may be eager, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, and no one has really pushed for it seriously other than just saying it should be done. This article is not yet at the maximum before splitting is recommended, so any missing info should just be added here unless it becomes too unwieldy. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise and am willing to work on the new articles if others here show their willingness to do the same. -

AndersenAnders (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extinction

Hi @FunkMonk, while I understand why you want sources for some of the things I changed, I am dissapointed by the fact that you reverted my whole edit. Because as I see it, there are some genuine erors in that paragraph.

- "were replaced by smaller and more agile ones like deer" is not supported by the source, and is factually incorrect as well. Odoiloceus was widespread and common throughout the American Pleistocene. Cervus canadense invaded the continent during the late Pleistocene, but had coexisted with bison and mammoths, for example, in Eurasia. Neither of them replaced the extinct megafauna. They simply remained.

- "the faster and more generalized felids that replaced them" that the bobcat would have been a faster runner than Homotherium is an assumption, and a pretty wild one at that. I don't see why we don't treat it as this. Also, Felidae includes Machairodontinae as a subfamily. If we say machairodontines were replaced by the "faster and more agile" feilds, this gives the impression that machairodontines were not felids.

- Machairodontines and other felids coexisted since the Miocene. That is a fact. I can understand if you caution that at one point or another certain species might have displaced each other, but the overall fact remains. There is no good reason why conical-toothed cats would have suddenly completely displaced the sabre-toothed ones after millions of years of coexistence.

AndersenAnders (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding here. As stated in the edit summary, it is not that I necessarily disagree with you that I reverted, but that you did not add sources that support these statements when changing the article. Since it is a featured article, that is a strict requirement. So the problem now is that if you change the wording to reflect something that isn't stated in the sources used, this will make the text misleading, as people will assume the new information is supported by the current sources. So what to do here is first to identify how and if the current text differs from the currently used source, and second, if we re-incorporate the statements you added before, to find reliable sources that support them in the context of Smilodon and add them. Pinging PrimalMustelid for further observations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand. As I see it, we could still delete the "replaced by deer" part, as it is not supprted by a source, at least not the one that would be obvious and should support it ("exceptional forearm strength in Smilodon"). Mauricio Antón also calls this theory unlikely, as machairodontines were more flexible than previously assumed, and were by no means limitted to giants as prey.

The part about felids being faster than machairodontines is a paraphrase taken from Mauricio Antón "Sabertooth". He cites J. Hough who, however, even in his description of how unfit and ill-adapted Smilodon would have been, differentiates it from the true felids. Antón then goes on to critizise the view Hough expresses, and uses the term felines (which, however, excludes the jaguar). Since there is no well-established name to refer to pantherines and felines collectively to the exclusion of machairodontines, (at least none that I know of), may we adopt the wording "true felids", and explain what is meant in a foodnote? Additionally, we might cite Barnett, Ross, et al. "Genomic adaptations and evolutionary history of the extinct scimitar-toothed cat, Homotherium latidens." as evidence that Homotherium was probably highly cursorial, probably more so than any modern cat apart from the cheetah. Antón also discusses the unlikelyhood of modern felids as the culprit, and explains that they coexisted at the top of the food chain "for more than a million years" (p. 223). He also speaks of "the allegedly faster modern cats (...) (p. 224) in this context. AndersenAnders (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

We could also flesh out the case for humans more, as Antón devotes considerable space to this theory in his work. By citing Faurby, Søren, et al. "Brain expansion in early hominins predicts carnivore extinctions in East Africa." we could also explain how top predators are more likely to suffer from human kleptoparasitism and competition than smaller predators, which would weave in quite well with the narrative. AndersenAnders (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, chiming in, and thanks for coming along! Apologies for any frustration you had on your editing experience. Regarding the "deer" part, it's a bit of a complicated story. Yes, there were several cervids in North America (Odocoileus, Cervalces, and Navahoceros, though the last likely went extinct earlier in the Rancholabrean), but they weren't exactly dominant elements of Pleistocene faunas. In addition, both Cervus and Alces did disperse into North America around 15,000 years ago, but they only reached their maximum range distributions within North America by later in the Holocene, so essentially they did fill roles as large-sized herbivores after the extinctions of many of the previous.

I do agree that the Machairodontinae is not "inferior" to the Pantherinae, the former was the first successful group of large-sized felids after all. However, the article never suggested that they was actually the case - this was simply a paragraph reflecting on historical thoughts on the extinctions of the machairodontines. That said, you seem to have quotes cited on you regarding this topic, so if you want, you can edit the paragraph if you feel it's necessary.

Finally, regarding the last suggestion of yours, I wouldn't recommend using that source as an application towards explaining extinctions in another continent - that would break WP:SYNTH, so original research or synthesis is a no-no. Articles shouldn't have "narratives" that are only theoretical - they are here first and foremost as encyclopedic content.

Let me know if you have any additional concerns. Happy editing! PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if deer filled the role of large-sized herbivores, then this statement still requires a source. And even if you find a source for that, to be frank, I doubt the veracity. It is expectable that deer have profited to some degree from the extinction of most megafaunal animals from the continent. But as a matter of fact, deer cannot be a qualitative replacement for Proboscideans (just to name one group). Simply due to physical constraints. Deer cannot browse foliage in the highest treetops, knock over mature trees, or eat the fruit of Maclura pomifera and Gymnocladus dioicus. And that is why they could not replace the extinct megafauna, which is visible in the changes in vegetation and fire regimes, for example.

I understand that the paragraph is a paraphrase of earlier works. But if I did not know better, I would get the impression that true felids were indeed faster than machairodontines. I think we should either adopt the wording "faster and more generalized" as a direct quote, or use "allegedly" and cite Antón.

So apart from the part about the deer, I think we have come to a conclusion. I will start implementing the suggested changes as soon as I find time. Thanks to all for their valuable contributions. AndersenAnders (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free, as long as it is properly sourced and the citations are formatted properly like the rest of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Additions seem good, AndersenAnders, but you'll need to add more specific page numbers for verifiability than just cite the book overall. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to do that anyway. Done AndersenAnders (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @FunkMonk, the lead should summarise the main points from the text. Which it does not do the way the summary is now. Human influence is increasingly crystalising as the main cause of the Quaternary extinction event. Why does the lead not reflect this? AndersenAnders (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As this is only one competing theory, there is no reason to give it WP:undue weight in the intro. The current intro wording "Its reliance on large animals has been proposed as the cause of its extinction, along with climate change and competition with other species, but the exact cause is unknown" already makes this point. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The human impact theory is one of the two main theories, and it is the one that explains global patterns best, also statistically. It is also quite specific in its assertion that humans in particular are responsible. Additionally, the human impact argument goes beyond mere competition to include destruction of habitat, extirpation of prey and deliberate persecution of predators. Grouping it among an old and largely outdated argument for interspecific competition does not give it due weight. Besides, while it may techically be true that " competition with other species" includes humans, most people will not read it as this, but get the impression that climate change and interspecific competition between animals were important, whereas humans were negligible. AndersenAnders (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"and it is the one that explains global patterns best" see, this is subjective, and there are plenty of studies that say the opposite or that it was a combination, and that is what the article should reflect. Interspecies competition includes human competition, so it is already included anyhow. As far as I recall, no one has proposed that this genus was directly hunted by humans, so it would be misleading to imply this. If they killed their prey off, that's a longer story that is explained already in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the fair portrayal of all relevant viewpoints. But there is ample evidence for widespread habitat destruction associated with an "unprecedented" increase in fire intensivity at Rancho la Brea, which "strongly implicates" humans as the causal actor. The relevant work is already referenced in the main body. This goes beyond the definition of competition as I understand it. The sixth mass extinction event well underway is not caused by competition with humans, but above all by habitat desctruction caused by humans. Saying that the late-Quaternary extinction event correlates best with the spread of Homo sapiens is also not subjective, but statistical. It is also in line with the ongoing population decline recent megafauna continue to experience. The influence of humans best explains why the extinction of megafauna in South America has been disproportionately greater than in Africa, for example. In contrast, the arguments in favour of climate change fail to convincingly explain why earlier interglacial transitions, such as the one before MIS 5, did not have the same impact at all.

All I'm saying is that the lead should mention humans as a possible factor independent from other species to account for these findings. Because the argument is independent of and much more potent than the largely superseded argument of interspecific competition with other predators. AndersenAnders (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I get your passion for the topic, but acting like this view is now absolute fact seems way too extreme for the purposes of this page. I think "competition with other species" can and does include humans. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not in fact acting like this view is now an absolute fact. But to summarise the destruction of habitats and the disruption of ecosystems and trophic cascades under the term "competition" strikes me as odd. Nobody would say that modern species extinction is due to competition between species, even if that might be technically true. AndersenAnders (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It is surely competition for habitat, no? I'll tag the only other regulars in this field for opinions, PrimalMustelid and Hemiauchenia. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean yeah, it can be defined pretty much as competition for food resources, and Homo sapiens impacting populations of certain mammals such as North American Equus spp. via hunting that Smilodon may depend on is technically that.

That said, the intro seems fine to me, trying to push some agenda of a "global extinction event" when other sources have argued that the extinction phases, especially by individual genera of North America, are nuanced and individual rather than globalized pretty much gives WP:undue weight as mentioned earlier and can certainly be seen as extreme. North America in the latest Pleistocene isn't the equivalent of the Mauritius island or New Zealand, and individual species/genus extinctions should be defined accordingly. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"Yeah", "pretty much" and "technically". Exactly, technically the wording is not wrong. But it is odd and gives WP:undue weight to a theory that Mauricio Antón, among others, has called unlikely given the fact that non-human competitors of Smilodon shared its fate. The idea that Felids simply displaced the Machairodontinae is now very much a fringe one that does not get a lot of academic support on its own. The two main theories for the late-Quaternary extinction of megafauna in general, and Smilodon in particular, are climate change and human impact. The lead mentions only one of them directly and makes it seem as if (non-human) interspecfic competition somehow enjoys equal support. What exactly would be so drastic about giving the human impact theory a mention in the lead.

I am not "pushing an agenda". I am merely referring to peer-reviewed scientific papers published in leading academic journals, and thus literature that is relevant to the discussion and within the bounds of scientific argument. Whether Nature is pursuing an agenda when they publish a paper showing that the existing megafauna has declined since the late Quaternary, suggesting that humans and not the climate are the culprit, is for you to judge. But that's not even the point of this discussion. You are right, North America is not the same as Mauritius and New Zealand, the extinction sequence takes place over a longer period of time. But that is to be expected in a human impact scenario because the land mass is incomparably larger. AndersenAnders (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You were arguing about leaning towards a one-sided global impact theory earlier, were you not? Anyways, I have an idea that may satisfy you: I can reword the lead to something along the lines of "Its reliance on large animals has been proposed as the cause of its extinction. S. fatalis may have been impacted by habitat turnover and loss of prey it specialized on due to possible climatic plus anthropogenic impacts and other factors while the extinction of S. populator remains poorly understood." As long as the lede mainly reflects on the extinction of Smilodon in particular, we should be good. Tagging @FunkMonk for input. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise to me. And of course, feel free to add relevant sourced information in the article body itself so that it elaborates clearly on the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry if my comments above have given the impression that I was trying to emphasise a one-sided view, but that was not my intention. My intention from the start was to give the human impact theory due weight in the lead, equal to climate change. Your @PrimalMustelid suggestion does this satisfactorily in my opinion. AndersenAnders (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Size Estimates

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking but is the shoulder height mentioned here, 120cm(3'11"), an average size estimate or a high end one?

Because you provided a range for their weights and lengths but not for how tall they get. 2001:4456:C16:E600:F36E:774B:B39C:CAAA (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As you can see from the text, it says "up to" about the heights mentioned. We can only provide estimates that are available in the literature. But please bring up if you know further estimates or ranges in reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)